Home Policy & AdvocacyCEC Policy Resources CEC Advocacy Archives

Testing

Group Intelligence Testing

a.Psychological tests of many kinds saturate our society and their use can result in the irreversible deprivation of opportunity to many children especially those already burdened by poverty and prejudice.

b.Most group intelligence tests are multileveled and standardized on grade samples, thus necessitating the use of interpolated and extrapolated norms and scores.

c.Most group intelligence tests, standardized on LEAs rather than on individual students, are not standardized on representitive populations.

d.In spite of the use of nonrepresentative group standardization's procedures, the norms are expressed in individual scores.

e.Most group intelligence tests, standardized on districts which volunteer, may have a bias in the standardization.

f.Many of the more severely disabled and those expelled or suspended have no opportunity to influence the norms.

g.Group intelligence tests are heavily weighted with language and will often yield spurious estimates of the intelligence of non-English speaking or language different children.

h.A group intelligence test score, although spurious, may still be a good predictor of school performance for some children.

i.School achievement predicts future school performances as well as group intelligence tests, thus leaving little justification for relying on group intelligence tests.

j.One of the most frequent abuses of group intelligence tests is the use of such tests with populations for which they are inappropriate.

The Council goes on record in full support of the recommendations of the "Classification Project" (Nicholas Hobbs, The Futures of Children, 1975, pp. 237-239)pertaining to group intelligence testing as follows:

a."...That there be established a National Bureau of Standards for Psychological Tests and Testing."

b.That there be established "minimum guidelines with respect to the utilization of psychological tests for the classification of children."

c."That organizations that make extensive use of educational and psychological tests...should establish review boards to monitor their testing programs."

Until these three recommendations are accomplished, The Council encourages a moratorium, on the use of group intelligence tests by individual school districts for the purpose of identifying children with exceptionalities. (Chapter 03. Para. 13)

Minimal Competency Testing

While most students with exceptional needs have been assured of their right to public education along with their peers, they have not been similarly assured of the opportunity to complete their education, graduate and receive a diploma signifying their achievement. There exist considerable variations and inconsistencies within and among the states and provinces regarding graduation requirements for pupils with exceptional needs and the procedures for their receiving, or not receiving, a diploma.

An emerging issue that compounds these variations and inconsistencies is the minimal competency testing movement, which uses established test results as standards for the granting of diplomas or for the determination of grade placement. Unless educational policies in this area are formulated in order to resolve these inconsistencies, eliminate potentially discriminatory practices, and assure that graduation and grade placement requirements are equitably applied to all students, many of the educational gains made by pupils with exceptional needs could be threatened or delayed.

The Council believes that educational policies governing minimal competency testing and graduation and/or grade placement requirements for pupils with exceptional needs should be developed at the state, provincial, and local levels. These policies should incorporate the following principles:

a.Every pupil with exceptional needs should have available the opportunity to demonstrate minimal competency.

b.Alternative methods of minimal competency testing and the demonstration of minimal competency should be available to pupils with exceptional needs to assure that the competency level is being tested rather than the exceptionality.

c.The Individualized Education Program (IEP)should be the vehicle for individually addressing the method by which each pupil with exceptional needs may demonstrate minimal competency standards and/or any differential standards that may be used.

d.The application of minimal competency testing programs to pupils with exceptional needs should provide for adequate phase-in periods and educational preparation time.

e.A minimal competency testing program for students with exceptional needs should provide successive opportunities to demonstrate competency, as well as adequate and appropriate remedial programs to address areas in which competency is not sufficiently demonstrated.

f.Only one type of diploma should be granted to all students, and it should be accompanied by grade transcripts and/or course-of-study description.

g.The successful implementation of a minimal competency testing program, including its application to pupils with exceptional needs, requires the cooperative efforts of regular educators, special educators, and parents in its planning, application, and evaluation. (Chapter 03, Para 14)

The Council for Exceptional Children.
(1993.) CEC Policy Manual, Section Three,
part 1 (pp. 10-11).
Reston, VA: Author.
Originally adopted by the Delegate
Assembly of The Council for Exceptional
Children in April 1983.